Single Gal and Do We Have a Master Plan?

As I picked up the paper on Saturday morning amidst my latte and bagel, I perused the business section to see that the City of San Jose has now approved Santana Row to seek developers to build and lease over 150,000 square feet of office space. I know this site is very downtown-centric and has received flack for it, but am I wrong in getting a quizzical look on my face when I read this? 

If Santana Row is building office space, what makes anyone think that our city’s priority list includes enticing businesses to downtown?  Correct me if I am wrong again, but aren’t there empty office buildings that already exist downtown that have been trying to lure tenants and companies for years?  What message does this send to them?  It seems the city wants to take the easy way out again and put our industry in Santana Row instead.

It makes me wonder if there is a plan in City Hall for any sort of business sector at all.  Most cities have a financial district, a technology sector and arts area, but we have our industry scattered.  Downtown has done a nice job thus far, but, again, City Hall has done nothing to help that cause in the past few years, and it just seems to be solidified by this move to bring business to Santana Row.  We have already seen City Hall allowing retail at Santana Row, thus giving no chance of downtown having similar retail outlets. Now they want to take the one thing downtown does a halfway decent job of—providing a place for people to work and companies to make their homes—and giving Santana Row an edge once again. 

I am just wondering if the next time I go to Rosie McCann’s for a night out with the girlfriends if I will look up and see someone at Ernst & Young filing my taxes, or as I am dining at Left Bank if I will see tech workers filing back into their offices to work their 12-hour days.  It all seems backwards to me. I assumed that the plan was to create and build upon what already existed.  However, the sad truth is that there is no plan, and I wonder if there ever was one.

8 Comments

  1. Plenty of cities have multiple business districts. There’s nothing wrong with SR becoming another node, as it’s still somewhat urban and centralized when compared to north San Jose (gross). Look at downtown LA and Century City, for example. We’ve wasted enough time trying to cram everything and everyone into downtown. Let the areas develop naturally and we’ll see unique distinctions forming an interesting mosaic.

  2. Single Gal,
    I had the exact opposite reaction to the article.  We are constantly reading and hearing about the long term consequences of weakening the tax base by converting our industrial land to housing – shouldn’t we then embrace conversions that go the other way?  Providing businesses more attractive places to locate in San Jose is a good thing.  Businesses aren’t just choosing between Santana Row and downtown, they can choose locations in Santa Clara, Campbell, or any of the other neighboring municipalities.  Not every business wants to locate downtown and trying to force them to will just result in losing those businesses to other cities.

  3. Not every business wants to locate downtown and trying to force them to will just result in losing those businesses to other cities.

    Exactly.  Most businesses, and people, prefer the less crowded horizontal model versus the crowded vertical model. 

    Also, there is an airport downtown, which tends to drive away businesses and residents.  If we use the 1000 acres of airport land in an intelligent manner we can provide space for businesses to locate downtown.

  4. Single Gal, c’mon, there IS a plan for downtown: make it into a suburb. All the construction downtown, except for Adobe, is housing. Tall stuff, often, at the center, surrounded by “cute” little houses. Just a bit further and you’re into “neighborhoods”—“strong” neighborhoods made less insignificant by redevelopment money snatched from “blighted” downtown to be put to “better” use. Scott Herhold had it right for once on Sunday when he noticed that San Jose is Podunk because it’s only 100K folks in the center, and 900K folks encircling the center, in neighborhoods.
    With all the housing being built in the core, Bella Mia and all the restaurants are closed on the weekends, absolute proof that
    THE PLAN isn’t working. Il Pastaia, a hotel restaurant, had to be open, but there were 2 couples and one small group in the vast dining room on Sat.
    The downtown residents, if there are any in all those condos, are off to a real city, or to Los Gatos, or Carmel. The worker bees have had enough of downtown all week. They know it well, and know there’s nothing there for them to come back to. Only Tom’s Arena seems to get some playing time, occasionally.
    The Convention Center folks have OJ’s, and that’s about it. If there were any leadership in SJ they’d hire an extra or leftover urban planner from Paris, Prague, London—or even Atlanta, Seattle or San Diego
    —even LA. But it would be hard to get any of them to come here when they find out that the Preservation “Action” Committee has SJ in its grip. George Green

  5. There is a plan for downtown, but it is more like vaporware than a pdf file. One problem is political, winners often seek to punish supporters of the losers in elections. (Hint—Chuck isn’t helping developers who supported Cindy.) Another problem is the mushy language that the planning department uses—a great deal of it is deliberately shaded and spun to mean a multiple of things, and doesn’t provide a clear and predictable path for developers to follow.

    A third problem is that the planning department lacks any mechanism or procedure for accommodating post-development problems. An example is the truly unattractive row houses built at North Capitol Avenue and Baton Rouge—I saw that process unfold in detail from 1993 until today, and a great many of the promises and premises were so much hot air. The planning department even thought residents in that mini-development would walk to the light rail station about 1/3 mile away which would provide some “bustle” to the sidewalks. So far that’s a joke searching for a punch line. But a big selling point was some amenities in place, namely two large gocery stores nearby, a Luckys and a Pack’n’Save. Unfortunately for the planning department, both grocery stores went out of business before the first row house was completed. After making inquiries, I learned that the planning department has no mechanism in place to collect information (much less asking the city council to make changes) post-approval when the situation changes so drastically. Two days ago there were four “for sale” signs along North Capitol Avenue for row houses in that development. Must not be enough bustle on the sidewalks.

    The planning department claims to be following doctrines laid out by “smart growth” which is a failure anywhere it is implemented. A better approach would be “wise growth”—see http://www.saveopenspaces.com/

  6. It must be a matter of ego on the part of a tiny majority. 

    I’ll ask again:  are any of our shakers and movers – politicians, developers, business folks – confident enough to sponsor a third party administered poll of the residents of our fair city? 

    I’d hazard a guess that more than three-quarters of those sampled have no interest in pouring billions of dollars into the area to create a “vibrant downtown.”

    Most folks are quite happy with their neighborhood shopping and entertainment venues.  Let those who champion downtown pay for it on their own nickel.

  7. The office building being built in Santana Row is very European, and it belongs to that area, not downtown.  It’s too pretty/unique to be in downtown.  I’m all for it.  Santana Row needs further built-out with offices, condos and retail.  Downtown had its chance and blew it.  The failure of downtown should not hold the city back.  If one area of the city, which is Santana Row, is doing well, you don’t hold up its progress.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *